It's funny how most other threads here complain about cars getting bigger with every generation, yet when GM takes the Malibu off of the growth hormone race, it gets smacked in the face.

Errr, the new Malibu is only a half an inch shorter than the old one, but took a 4" cut to the wheelbase impacting interior room. So it's not like the new one is somehow a much smaller vehicle on the outside.

That being said, my supposedly has 34.6" of rear legroom, but the back seat is still cavernous (I'm 5'11):

I have to agree, especially after reading the article. Despite not liking the CVT, they also praised and really liked the Altima's ride and handling. It was the quickest and got the best MPGs. They loved the interior and said it had the best mix of gadgets/technology and user-friendliness (hi Ford).t.

One vehicle, straddling the difference between the Malibu and Impala's sizes (say, like the Passat), would do a better job of hitting the circa-2012 midsize sedan sweet spot than both of them do together. I wouldn't have killed the Impala, though. The Impala should have been a RWD halo pimpmobile, and the Malibu should have taken over the FWD basic sedan role that it currently shares.

But plenty of other brands have a FWD fullsize flagship sedan to sit on top of their midsize sedan. Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia - they all follow this same pattern. Only Chrysler has a RWD halo pimpmobile, which doesn't sell in nearly the same ballpark as the Impala. And Chevy is getting a RWD halo pimpmobile as well - 2014 SS.

I think GM ****ed up by trying to differentiate the Malibu that much from the Impala sizewise, and I think they did that to try to sell it in global markets.

I agree the Malibu should be on the LWB Epsilon platform rather than SWB without a doubt. But you say "****ed up" like they had a choice. Unfortunately GM had to make the Opel-developed Epsilon platform work for 2 sedans. It wasn't like they had a huge pile of cash on hand to develop a new platform and could do so in the time given. And unfortunately, the Epsilon 2 platform is not only heavy as hell, but the SWB version is too small for American paper comparison tests. They kinda of made the best out of a bad situation, and at least were able to add some length to the Impala to address the LaCrosse trunk size issues.

However, GM might end up lucking out in this situation and not have to take a wash until a redesign in 2018. While straddling classes has long been a GM weakness, the midsize sedan class is starting to play second fiddle to the compact sedan class in the US and maybe a shakeup could be in store. By all accounts so far the 2014 Impala looks to be a real solid effort. Having a flashier Impala take over retail sales from higher optioned Malibus might work this time around, especially since the Impala will be equipped with a 4 cyclinder. Shift Impala fleet sales to the Malibu, where rear seat size won't be such a "deal breaker" and the 2 sedans could net a very healthy amount of sales.

Except, in 2008, the new accord didn't get smaller on the outside to increase interior room.... the accord went huge

That was 2008. The 2013 car is shorter, lighter, and has more interior room than the 2008-12 car.

What also happened was that in 2008 the Accord Coupe and sedan diverged. The 7th-gen Accord coupe has a larger trunk and more passenger volume than the 8th-gen. The coupe stood pat while the sedan grew, in order to better diversify.

That was 2008. The 2013 car is shorter, lighter, and has more interior room than the 2008-12 car.

What also happened was that in 2008 the Accord Coupe and sedan diverged. The 7th-gen Accord coupe has a larger trunk and more passenger volume than the 8th-gen. The coupe stood pat while the sedan grew, in order to better diversify.

the 2013, compared to 2012, gets:
more trunk space
less front head room
less front hip room
more front shoulder room
less rear head room
more rear hip room
more rear leg room

Not exactly supporting the claim you made.

The smaller exterior dimensioned Camry is a little tighter up front, but provides a little larger space in the back....

Technically, the smaller Camry, when it was "redesigned" kept virtually the same exterior dimensions while increasing space inside, mostly to the rear passenger compartment.

i have an 08 and the biggest change apart from the visual (appears much smaller) and is in actuality on paper, is the trunk space, and rear leg room. I suppose it helps that the looks much better too. For the areas that it got smaller, I didn't notice those as at all compared to the console compartment which is just tiny now. Where did the hell did all the space go to?

Originally Posted by konigwheels

Wow, it amazes me that we have children in here that can't read a couple paragraphs. No wonder America's doing so well in education! Can't take the time to read, but sure can find the time to post. Self indulgence at it's finest.

How in the world is the Altima short on interior space? I have witnessed my 6'2" father adjust the drivers seat to his position and then sit behind it more than comfortably; there is ample space in the interior of the Altima. The only thing the Altima is short on is memory seating...

Interestingly enough I recently had a 2012 Malibu LT rental up in Oregon. The backseat was uninhabitable for myself (6'2) and my father (6'4). Outside of the fact it felt like you were sitting on a school bus bench seat with comfort (like sitting on cheap leather covered plywood), it was the headroom that was the major issue. I see from 2012 to 2013 the legroom actually decreased nearly an inch from 37.6" to 36.8" (dumb move, probably a legroom issue now too for taller adults). I also noticed though the headroom increased, but only 3 tenths of an inch. Both me and especially my father had to adjust our heads to the side just to sit upright in the backseat. Not so sure a 3 tenths of an inch increase will totally remedy that. Maybe it's how/where they measure exactly but when I got in the new Accord (same headroom height as new Malibu) nor my father or I had any issue with backseat headroom (or obviously legroom with that big backseat).

Hmm. I was in NorCal pretty recently and I saw plenty of Altimas. All over San Francisco (those could of been rentals) but even all the way up in Danville. I have yet to go somewhere and notice there's a dearth of Nissans. The Murano is a pretty strong contender in the mid-size SUV market as well.

Wow - you really were right in my backyard. Still:

September 2012:

Maxima: 5,718 -6.8%

Mazda 6: 1,403 ?%

Passat: 9,500 +199.1% (I know, slightly unfair )

Camry: 34,252 +37.8%

Prius: 18,932 +103%

And while everyone else has big gains, the Altima stagnated with 24,448 (+0.4%). And the Jetta outsold the Mazda 3. This is nationwide - you bet this looks yet more skewed on the West Coast. So, yes, relatively speaking, there are lot fewer new Mazda and Nissan family sedans on the road now, and this is even more the case on the West Coast.

But plenty of other brands have a FWD fullsize flagship sedan to sit on top of their midsize sedan. Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia - they all follow this same pattern. Only Chrysler has a RWD halo pimpmobile, which doesn't sell in nearly the same ballpark as the Impala. And Chevy is getting a RWD halo pimpmobile as well - 2014 SS.

Sure, but most of those brands don't have a 'tweener Buick sitting above them, right where the Avalon, Azera, Taurus, and so forth are priced. If the Impala could start around $30-32k like the LaCrosse does, that'd be perfect, with lots of room for a LWB Malibu underneath it price- and equipment-wise. But Impala needs to undercut LaCrosse, while still offering something more than the 'Bu.

Originally Posted by GTRaavv

I agree the Malibu should be on the LWB Epsilon platform rather than SWB without a doubt. But you say "****ed up" like they had a choice. Unfortunately GM had to make the Opel-developed Epsilon platform work for 2 sedans. It wasn't like they had a huge pile of cash on hand to develop a new platform and could do so in the time given. And unfortunately, the Epsilon 2 platform is not only heavy as hell, but the SWB version is too small for American paper comparison tests. They kinda of made the best out of a bad situation, and at least were able to add some length to the Impala to address the LaCrosse trunk size issues.

However, GM might end up lucking out in this situation and not have to take a wash until a redesign in 2018. While straddling classes has long been a GM weakness, the midsize sedan class is starting to play second fiddle to the compact sedan class in the US and maybe a shakeup could be in store. By all accounts so far the 2014 Impala looks to be a real solid effort. Having a flashier Impala take over retail sales from higher optioned Malibus might work this time around, especially since the Impala will be equipped with a 4 cyclinder. Shift Impala fleet sales to the Malibu, where rear seat size won't be such a "deal breaker" and the 2 sedans could net a very healthy amount of sales.

I don't really mean to imply they had no choice, though it's just a snowball of bad choices made through the years. I do agree that the Impala looks pretty great and gives Chevrolet a little better answer to high-spec midsizers and other fullsizers. I just think their redundancy is really hurting them, and if they're committed to Buick, they can't cripple Chevrolet models to try to jam them all together in a price/size continuum. They either need to embrace a bit of redundancy, or they need to axe some models.

IPRO Meat-Director and High Minister of Terror-Grilling

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Man

The Terror Grill: Part restaurant, part amusement attraction, part gladiator arena, all profit.

I love how TCL is always whining about how big and fat American market cars are, crying for more European size offerings, then when gm actually downsize a model everyone whines about it. Then VW makes their cars fat and more American/less European and everyone loves it.

its the newest one on newsstands...so probably won't be online for a bit

Originally Posted by konigwheels

Wow, it amazes me that we have children in here that can't read a couple paragraphs. No wonder America's doing so well in education! Can't take the time to read, but sure can find the time to post. Self indulgence at it's finest.

Sure, but most of those brands don't have a 'tweener Buick sitting above them, right where the Avalon, Azera, Taurus, and so forth are priced. If the Impala could start around $30-32k like the LaCrosse does, that'd be perfect, with lots of room for a LWB Malibu underneath it price- and equipment-wise. But Impala needs to undercut LaCrosse, while still offering something more than the 'Bu.

But currently the Impala starts off at almost the same price as the Taurus (not factoring in huge rebates). And there is no reason to think that the 2014 Impala won't receive a price bump to Taurus levels. Has the Taurus hurt the Fusion at all? I'd also argue that pricing these mainstream "flagship" sedans higher like the Asian brands has not necessarily led to a lot of success in terms of sales (ex: Avalon, new Azera maybe).

I also don't think LaCrosse pricing is going to hinder how Chevy prices the Impala with options too much. While the LaCrosse currently starts at $31,000, it keeps moving up the price ladder quite a bit since release. I'd imagine that the refresh for 2014 will see another $1,000 price increase and the redesign an even larger one. They also seem to target different markets rather well, at least a lot better than GM used to do with its rebadges.

I don't really mean to imply they had no choice, though it's just a snowball of bad choices made through the years. I do agree that the Impala looks pretty great and gives Chevrolet a little better answer to high-spec midsizers and other fullsizers. I just think their redundancy is really hurting them, and if they're committed to Buick, they can't cripple Chevrolet models to try to jam them all together in a price/size continuum. They either need to embrace a bit of redundancy, or they need to axe some models.

Snowball of bad choices is nice to say the least! And I think redundancy has plagued them in the past to no ends. But I don't think the issues with the Malibu stem from any redundancy. They stem from not having 2 platforms sized in spec with other U.S. midsize and fullsize sedan platforms and ones that don't weigh a ton available at the time. I'd assume that somewhere right now GM is developing an Epsilon 3 platform that will be lighter and allow for greater adaptability in terms of length, giving Chevy the option to have a larger Malibu and Impala in the future.

However, I don't think this issue will matter too much at this time because of the transition GM is trying to make with the Impala from fleet queen to retail darling. This requires a large shift of the 10,000+ fleet sales a month the Impala racks in to the Malibu. And I think the Malibu is more than capable of handling fleet sales shifted down from the Impala as well as maintaining its retail sales. This allows the Impala to appeal to high-spec buyers in the segment who probably care more about resale value that can be diminished by high percentages of fleet. Should be interesting to see how the premium-spec Fusions retain value if Ford keeps up its fleet dumping practices.

Wow, it amazes me that we have children in here that can't read a couple paragraphs. No wonder America's doing so well in education! Can't take the time to read, but sure can find the time to post. Self indulgence at it's finest.

Wow, it amazes me that we have children in here that can't read a couple paragraphs. No wonder America's doing so well in education! Can't take the time to read, but sure can find the time to post. Self indulgence at it's finest.

I love how TCL is always whining about how big and fat American market cars are, crying for more European size offerings, then when gm actually downsize a model everyone whines about it. Then VW makes their cars fat and more American/less European and everyone loves it.

A .5" reduction in length is downsizing? That's pretty much parity IMHO. Now if were were talking 4", like they did with the wheelbase, I'd agree.

well i got the first two right. man, how quickly the top fall. i don't know what they hated so much about the Passat this time around. actually, i think the non-eco Malibu probably did very well in the handling portion, and maybe the Camry SE grew on them.

actually, with a little research, the Accord EX seemed to win because of its heavy advantage in powertrain over the Fusion. they both had the same score for vehicle evaluation 82 /100 points and chassis score 54/60 points. but the Accord got 52/55 points for powertrain vs 45/55 from the Fusion, and the Accord surprisingly got 23/25 points for fun to drive compared to 21/25 points from the Fusion contradicting the Motor Trend comparison which stated that the same Accord EX was no fun to drive at all. however, they did use the automatic version of the Fusion which is probably much more boring than the manual. so it appears that the Fusion wasn't as knocked over its ergonomics and interior styling as i thought it would be. or maybe the Accord lost points in probably being the most expensive vehicle in the test, or something.

Looking at the charts rather than reading the text shows these cars to be remarkably close, so a few observations:
Based on observed MPG, the Malibu's 21.3 really is off; the Passat's "good, but not outstanding" 25.5 is only .3 off the Accord's "fine" 25.8 and .8 off the Altima's leading 26.3.
The Passat's "massive trunk" is smaller than the Malibu and Fusion.
The Passat, for all the bally-hoo about its interior size, comes up first only in rear legroom, and that by .2 over the Camry. If you're a tall driver, you'll want the Altima.
They're all pretty close 0-30 and 0-40, the Passat lags (probably noticeably) 0-60 and 45-65.
Based on the numbers, there's no clear winner.
Interior and exterior styling preferences are ultimately personal, so I doubt that anyone choosing based on that will be disappointed.
I suspect that the driving experience is the clearest variable. If you're not an enthusiast and/or have a brand preference, it probably won't make a difference; and while the Malibu and Camry seem to come up a bit short, I wonder whether the on-the-road difference between the others is that significant. Personally, I've driven a prior gen Camry, ridden in my brother-in-laws Eco-Malibu-sort of unimpressed, especially compared to his previous gen Malibu; and taken a Passat 2.5 for an unfortunately short test drive-satisfied enough to give it another shot; test drove an Optima-impressive; and have no experience with recent Accords or Altimas.
I know I sound non-committal, but this test gives me no reason to believe that whichever car one picks it won't disappoint, nor will nitpicky hairsplitting change anyone's mind.
All in all, I guess that's a testament to the manufacturers' strides in a very competitive segment, or an indictment of their universal blandness-I'll go with the former.

Looking at articles on their website, you can find a ZL1 vs M6 comparo, XTS and Bentley, Scion vs. Porsche Cayman S, and a Rubicon with a G550.

Originally Posted by NoXenons

It doesn't get any more ridiculous. They determined the winner of the G550/Rubicon test from the slalom speed!

Car and Driver's tongue was placed firmly in their cheek when they came up with those comparisons, but they still had a point - What is the gap in performance, comfort, quality, etc. between luxury and non-luxury brand vehicles? Is the price jump for a BMW over a Chevy worth it?

Originally Posted by gti5dr06

I'm assuming there's more than four since they mentioned it was last.

It was just the four cars; Accord, Fusion, Altima, Passat, respectively.